D&D 5E Maybe D&D Should Branch?

[billd91]

If WotC is still serious about trying to leverage D&D into a $50 million per annum "core brand", what can we infer from that?

While we're pretty certain that's what they labored under for 3e and 4e, we don't really know that's the case any more. At least it hasn't been confirmed. But with Pokemon now well out of WotC's hand (as a major reason WotC's properties were considered as separate brands), maybe WotC has been able to get everything looked at as a WotC brand rather than Magic and D&D. That would be, probably, their best hope under Hasbro. And were I Hasbro, given the resurgence Magic is undergoing, I'd probably be willing to allow WotC to renegotiate that. It would certainly be more sensible.

 

[Balesir]

Are you kidding? Of course they expect 5e to get them some Pathfinder players back.

That may very well be what they expect, but I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is asking whether it will actually happen - I'm inclined to agree with him that it won't. The PF fans have realised that the D&D name isn't pixie dust.

If a genie appeared and told the president of WOTC that no Pathfinder fans are returning no matter what, then 5e would be canned immediately. Instead they'd start working on 4.5e.

That's an intriguing idea - anyone know any genie summoning spells?

 

[billd91]

That may very well be what they expect, but I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is asking whether it will actually happen - I'm inclined to agree with him that it won't. The PF fans have realised that the D&D name isn't pixie dust.

If 5e is a good version of D&D, it'll gain some PF people back. I have no doubt of that. There are lots of PF players who still like earlier editions of D&D and would be willing to play a new edition that had more of an older edition feel. And then there are the people willing to participate in a variety of different games as long as they like them. There are people who (shocking, I know) actually play both 4e and PF now.

If 5e turns out to be pretty good, I'll try to make time in my schedule to play it as well as play or run PF. Hell, I found time to play 4e and PF until the group finally decided to permanently shelve 4e several months ago, and I don't even like 4e very much.

 

[Mark CMG]

Maybe. I'm not sure, though - I mean, it didn't work for WotC, did it! (4e was hardly put together by unknown hacks.)

Well, it was what it was. There are enough criticisms about it in other threads that I won't recount them here but obviously something went very wrong for WotC to be in the position it is in in the marketplace that was created by its brand. And I don't think it is the actual brand/trademark that is the cause of the decline.

If WotC is still serious about trying to leverage D&D into a $50 million per annum "core brand", what can we infer from that?

Let's say that they're currently at $30 million per annum. (And let's assume we're talking sales here, rather than profits.) Anything less than that and I would have though it's madness to assume you can make the core brand target (though I'm not in business, so what would I know?).

Is half of that novels? More? I'm going to knock off the novels and say I've got $15 million left to make up in sales.

The board games have been very successful, it seems. Plus there's probably other D&D-branded stuff I'm not thinking of. I'm going to call all that $5 million.

That leaves me with RPG sales of around $10 million per year. Does that seem right? Too high? Too low?

Now we know that PF is nipping at the heels of that figure, or has even overtaken it (depending on data set, period, inclusion or exclusion of subscription sales, etc). While Monte Cook's half-million is pretty impressive!, my rough-and-ready maths puts Paizo at 20 times that size. I don't think they were going to do that with Runegoose, or 4e, or 13th Age, or Burning Wheel. I think it was D&D that took them there.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You think half a million by one guy on an RPG line (the start up anyway) while a company of 20+ and another of 50+ employees struggle to make 10 million off their RPG line (a year? and every year?) makes it seem like the numbers above must be off, but who really knows?

Nevertheless, it is interesting that the D&D brand, which is meant to denote an RPG product and spin offs, has the most trouble getting what they actually call an RPG to perform under its own brand. I'd imagine that's got to be a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed in pursuit of the 50 million a year.

That is an interesting hypothesis. And an interesting scenario. I think the bigger threat might be "Pathfinder 2nd ed", if they ever have to do it - is D&Dnext really going to pull people away from PF when 4e couldn't hook hem in the first place? (Also, what will the clone of Pathfinder 1st ed be called if/when PF2 comes?)

I'm not sure a more-of-the-same direction is sustainable for either company for much longer. We've seen one way in which WotC tried to handle such a switch and overall for them it didn't work out so well. We've yet to see if Paizo can manage a similar transition. It's essentially a company mostly made up of people who weren't picked for the other company's transition team. They managed to do more-of-the-same so well they took half the business away from their former employers. Can they also top their former workplace when it comes to transforming the product line into a whole new animal without the bludgeon of the top brand to shore things up? Obviously, even having the top brand can only do so much for you if the public doesn't like what you produce but it sure does help weather some bad decisions.

You're in Chicago, right? In my case, Melbourne Australia. Though I have been to Chicago a couple of times. A very striking skyline!

Just outside of Chicago now, NW, near the O'Hare Airport, but I get into the city regularly. One of these days, I really need to see Australia and even NZ while I'm in the hemisphere.

 

[Emerikol]

That may very well be what they expect, but I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is asking whether it will actually happen - I'm inclined to agree with him that it won't. The PF fans have realised that the D&D name isn't pixie dust.

That's an intriguing idea - anyone know any genie summoning spells?

I guess I'm going to just repeat Bill. I think there are those who are not really satisfied with Pathfinder and want something different but feel it's the lesser of two evils when compared to 4e. Thats me. There are those still playing 3.5 right now and I've come around to thinking that his group is big. It's probably the #3 most played rpg behind Pathfinder and 4e.

There are those who like Pathfinder but would enjoy something different if it was good. I think this is the biggest group.

They don't care how many Pathfinder books people buy. They care how many 5e books people buy. Tons of 4e books got sold early to people who wouldn't get caught that way again. Thats me. I'm sure I've got 300 dollars in 4e books and I hate the game. But hey I can't be accused of not trying. So they do need to do something different. 4.5e redone wouldn't sell anywhere near what 4e did.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If WotC is still serious about trying to leverage D&D into a $50 million per annum "core brand", what can we infer from that?

That they're going to fail, again? Mainly because the entire RPG market probably doesn't add up to $50 mil and their current strategy is designed to grow ('take back') market share, rather than grow the market.

 

[primarchone]

That they're going to fail, again? Mainly because the entire RPG market probably doesn't add up to $50 mil and their current strategy is designed to grow ('take back') market share, rather than grow the market.

Hi!

This.

While all the RPG forums love arguing about why this version of D&D is better than another the most probable observation that can be made is that since Hasbro has owned D&D edition lifespan has been getting shorter and shorter and have included "reboots" in the form of half-editions (3.5) or "parallel" products (essential).

This tells me that D&D is not hitting whatever elusive dollar amount is desired for that brand. It's probably not hitting it because the "goal" is unrealistic and unobtainable by ANY RPG.

5e will be no different. Not because it will be a bad game, but because it has the burden of hitting a sales mark I believe no RPG can ever reach.

I also believe this is the last shake Hasbro will give the brand in RPG form (they'll use the IP for video games, boardgames and maybe even movies). It's had over a decade to prove to Hasbro it can hit that unattainable goal. I don't think they'll accept any spin or excuses when 5e also fails to reach it.

D&D in any version has had sales that would make any RPG publisher ecstatically happy. But its a question of scale and the scale of the RPG industry as a whole is a scale I believe Hasbro will soon deem "inconsequential".

Millions in sales is a lot, but when you expecting TENS of millions or even more than 100 million, anything less is called failure. I'm afraid that's where we are with D&D and its IP owner Hasbro.

Primarch

 

[Tony Vargas]

That may very well be what they expect, but I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is asking whether it will actually happen - I'm inclined to agree with him that it won't. The PF fans have realised that the D&D name isn't pixie dust.

That's an intriguing idea - anyone know any genie summoning spells?

Short of summoning a genie, there's one way I can think of that WotC could get Pathfinder fans back into the fold: convince Paizo to kill Pathfinder just like WotC is killing 4e. That'd be quite a task, but, with a good enough OGL or even a deal between the two companies, Paizo could conceivably stand to make more from supporting 5e than continuing with Pathfinder. It'd require some delicate negotiating and good PR. Given WotC's track record, it'd be a long shot...

 

[Jupp]

With much of the same creative talent?

I am not entirely sure if I understand the question but if you mean the creative individuals behind the brand then I think it is not really a matter of "faces" but more the question if the creative philosophy behind the product remains true in the future. You can change the captain of a ship if it stays true to its course. A new captain might do things a bit differently and perhaps introduce additional twists but if the red line is being followed the ship will remain on track regardless of who is the helmsman.

In the end the changes at the creative top is what made D&D interesting through the last few decades. It would have been boring if D&D would have stayed the same through all those years. And we wouldn't have all those funny edition wars.

 

[Jupp]

If you are referring to editions like Pathfinder 1e or D&D 4e then it's already clear. Pathfinder will outlive 4e. 5e has been announced.

If you mean the "brand" Pathfinder vs the "brand" D&D then I'd say they are both very likely to exist in 10 years. I would of course give the edge to D&D if I had to pick. D&D is an iconic name. But I would assume that both games are here to stay and thrive.

Yep I was mainly referring to that particular point in time when D&D changed to 4e and Paizo released Pathfinder. So Paizo took many of the 3e fans under its wings while WotC opened a new chapter in the evolution of their brand.

The interesting question for me is what Paizo will do in a few years when they might get a feeling that a "new Pathfinder" might be a viable option. WotC can build on their own IP without boundaries but Paizo is restricted to what the OGL is allowing them to do, unless they decide to create something entirely new. Or they stick with what they have, with only marginal changes for years to come. That might sound static and traditional but perhaps that is what the audience is expecting.

 

[Mark CMG]

I am not entirely sure if I understand the question but if you mean the creative individuals behind the brand then I think it is not really a matter of "faces" but more the question if the creative philosophy behind the product remains true in the future. You can change the captain of a ship if it stays true to its course. A new captain might do things a bit differently and perhaps introduce additional twists but if the red line is being followed the ship will remain on track regardless of who is the helmsman.

Yup, I meant how many of the same designers and writers would likely still be there. Forget about the "captain" at WotC, we know the same captain won't be there. But as the question goes, if you replace every board and nail in a ship, is it still the same ship? Of course, that might be more of a rules question.

 

[pemerton]

Are you kidding? Of course they expect 5e to get them some Pathfinder players back.

No doubt. But that doesn't mean that they will.

One of the major reasons Pathfinder took off is 4e. People didn't abandon a game they'd played for twenty years on a whim.

Part of my point is that playing Pathfinder isn't abandoning a game that you played for twenty years. It's keeping going with the same game you played for the past decade or so. PF is not just a d20 game like True20 or FantasyCraft. It is D&D. Just like the poster says.

That may very well be what they expect, but I think pemerton is asking whether it will actually happen

Correct.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

I'm just trying to work out how much bigger than Monte's project PF and D&D the RPG are. By my made-up figures, they're about 20 times the size. And I'm curious as to whether others think that those figures might be in the right ballpark, or am I completely out?

it is interesting that the D&D brand, which is meant to denote an RPG product and spin offs, has the most trouble getting what they actually call an RPG to perform under its own brand

Doesn't that mostly confirm what we already expected, namely, that more people read novels and play boardgames than play RPGs?

 

[Emerikol]

Part of my point is that playing Pathfinder isn't abandoning a game that you played for twenty years. It's keeping going with the same game you played for the past decade or so. PF is not just a d20 game like True20 or FantasyCraft. It is D&D. Just like the poster says.

I truly hate 4e and I wish it had never been written. I still haven't switched to Pathfinder. I don't run a Pathfinder game. I guess I own 3.5. I ran a 4e campaign but since that ended I took a hiatus from roleplaying. When I began developing my next campaign world, they announced 5e. Would I have played Pathfinder if not? Maybe. More likely DCC, Hackmaster, or CoC.

I still feel a loyalty to the D&D brand. I want it to do well. I want it to be related to the game I started so long ago. So I hope for 5e. I think if 5e fails for me I'll just write my own game.

Here are my preferences
1. DM empowerment/open ended interpretation at the edges.
2. Gritty. Level Drain. Rust Monsters. etc...
3. A long long skill system. 3e's is inadequately short.
4. I like flexible options that are by area NOT class. So martial abilities are open to all characters. Magic is a common source tapped into in different ways.
5. Simulationist, process sim, no plot coupons or dissociative mechanics.
6. Flavor baked into powers. Essential common effects in stat block.
7. PCs are not Gods nor are they the centerpiece of the world. The world is a strange and marvelous place. PCs make their way in that world and some become heroes. Some just make their way.

I could go on but I think most of you would get the idea.

 

[Mark CMG]

Doesn't that mostly confirm what we already expected, namely, that more people read novels and play boardgames than play RPGs?

It does make you wonder but also makes you wonder what draws folks to D&D novels and boardgames that doesn't attract them to D&D RPGs, insofar as it apparently isn't the RPG drawing them to those offshoot IP efforts.

 

[MichaelSomething]

i truly hate 4e and i wish it had never been written. I still haven't switched to pathfinder. I don't run a pathfinder game. I guess i own 3.5. I ran a 4e campaign but since that ended i took a hiatus from roleplaying. When i began developing my next campaign world, they announced 5e. Would i have played pathfinder if not? Maybe. More likely dcc, hackmaster, or coc.

I still feel a loyalty to the d&d brand. I want it to do well. I want it to be related to the game i started so long ago. So i hope for 5e. I think if 5e fails for me i'll just write my own game.

Here are my preferences
1. Dm empowerment/open ended interpretation at the edges.
2. Gritty. Level drain. Rust monsters. Etc...
3. A long long skill system. 3e's is inadequately short.
4. I like flexible options that are by area not class. So martial abilities are open to all characters. Magic is a common source tapped into in different ways.
5. Simulationist, process sim, no plot coupons or dissociative mechanics.
6. Flavor baked into powers. Essential common effects in stat block.
7. Pcs are not gods nor are they the centerpiece of the world. The world is a strange and marvelous place. Pcs make their way in that world and some become heroes. Some just make their way.

I could go on but i think most of you would get the idea.

gurps?

 

[pemerton]

what draws folks to D&D novels and boardgames that doesn't attract them to D&D RPGs

They like B fantasy fiction and/or boardgaming? D&D isn't just an RPG system: it's a particular take on generic fantasy tropes, plus its own weirdness.

RPGing does seem to be something of a minority hobby, but there appears to be a market for the fiction that it produces.

 

[Jupp]

It does make you wonder but also makes you wonder what draws folks to D&D novels and boardgames that doesn't attract them to D&D RPGs, insofar as it apparently isn't the RPG drawing them to those offshoot IP efforts.

I think because boardgames do not have the stigma attached to them that they are complicated, archaic and that they belong into the realm of geekdom. As for books it is less a question of D&D being the setting but because they are fantasy themed general and they are light reading. And just because you like reading fantasy books does not mean that you are a board/rpg gamer. It could make you one but I imagine that not that many readers of D&D books would make the jump over to the boardgame, or even the rpg product itself.
The marketing folks at WotC will tell you that the books/boardgames are the entry point for the RPG but the question is what percentage will actually make that transition.

 

[Jupp]

Yup, I meant how many of the same designers and writers would likely still be there. Forget about the "captain" at WotC, we know the same captain won't be there. But as the question goes, if you replace every board and nail in a ship, is it still the same ship? Of course, that might be more of a rules question.

You could compare it to the Star Wars novels, somehow. There are and have been dozens of different writers creating SW novels over the past decades but even if they introduced their own parts and pieces to the setting with their books the overall picture still adheres to the core that was defined by Lucas back then.

 

[Emerikol]

It does make you wonder but also makes you wonder what draws folks to D&D novels and boardgames that doesn't attract them to D&D RPGs, insofar as it apparently isn't the RPG drawing them to those offshoot IP efforts.

A board game is an evenings entertainment that is begun and ended that day. "Mostly". We aren't talking wargames here so much as just games. Wargames though still have a definite beginning and end.

D&D is a pretty big commitment. In my playstyle it is a massive DM commitment. Fun for me but not something everyone necessarily wants. Even players though are more invested time wise than they would be for a board game. A lot of people don't want to spend that kind of time on a hobby.

I find myself thinking this way on other stuff. I have a choice of a six hour miniatures game or a one hour indie game and I often find myself choosing the one hour option. I really like roleplaying so the extra commitment is worth it but that may not be true for a majority of the populace.

 

[Emerikol]

gurps?

Well every game has some elements and perhaps gurps does meet a few but it falls short on a lot of the others.